C9S 



im^- 



^.} 



H^ 



% f^p 



v3^ i' 



U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 

OFFICE OF EXPERIMENT STATIONS— BULLETIN NO. 103. 



A. C. TRUE, Director. 



:5'2-6 



The Evolution of ReapinC 1 




BY 



MERRITT FINLEY MILLER, 

Baclielor of Science in Agriculture of Ohio State Umversity. 




WASHINGTON: 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE. 

1902. 






OFFICE OF EXPERIMENT STATIONS. 



A. C. Tkue, Ph. D. — Director. 

E. W. Allen, Ph. D.—Amstant Dircclur and Editor »f Experiment Station Record. 

W. H. Beal,' B. a., 'M-.'E.— Editor of Experiment Station Work and Miscellaneous 

Fuhlications. 

editorial departments. 

E. W. Allen and H. W. Lawson— C/tmisiry, Dairy Farming, and Dairtjing. 
W. H. B-EAij—Meteorologii, Fertilizers and Soils [including methods of analysis), and 
Agricidtural Engineering. , 

Walter H. Evans, Ph. D. — Botany and Diseases of Plants. 
G. F. Langwortity, Ph. D. — Foods and Animal Production. 
J. I. ScRVLTE— Field Crops. 
E. V. Wilcox, Th.I).— Entomology and Veterinm-y Science. 

C. B. Smith — Horticulture. 

D. J. Crosby — Agricultural Institutions. 

2 



or 



Oo 



f 



F;rTER OF TRANSMITTAL 



U, S. Department of Agriculture, 

Office of Experiment Stations, 
Washington, D. C, January 1, 1902. 
Sir: I have the houor to trausniit herewith, and to recommend for 
pnl)lication as a bulletin of this Office, an article on the evolution of 
reaping machines, prepared under the general supervision of Thomas 
F. Hunt, dean and professor of agriculture, College of Agriculture and 
Domestic Science, Ohio State University, by M. F, Miller, when a 
candidate for the degree of bachelor of science in that college. The 
article summarizes the history of the various stages in the develop- 
ment of reaping machines in so satisfactory a manner that it is deemed 
wortli}^ of publication ])y the Department as a useful contribution to 
information on the important subject of farm machinery. It has not 
been attempted in this summary to refer to all inventions in connec- 
tion with reaping machines, but, as a rule, only those are considered 
which have marked some important advance in the development of 
the perfected modern machine. A few of the more important sources 
of information drawn upon in the j>reparation of the article are referred 
to in footnotes; a more complete list of authorities consulted will be 
found at the end of the bulletin (p. 42). 
Respectfully, 



A. 0. True, 

Director. 



lion. James Wilson, 

Secretary of Agriculture. 



CONTENTS 



Page. 

Hand reapers . - ''' 

Early English machines 11 

American machines - - - 32 

Reapers 22 

Harvesters ^ 33 

Binders . - 34 

Headers - . 37 

Mowers - - - - 39 

References to literature 42 

5 



ILLUSTRATIONS. 



Page. 
Plate I. Fig. 1, early cradle scythe; fig. 2, American cradle scythe; fig. 3, 

the Gallic header ( A. D. 70) 10 

II. Fig. 1, forms of early cutters (circular motion); fig. 2. forms of 

early cutters (rectilinear motion) . — . . - 12 

III. Fig. 1, Smith's reaping machine (1814); fig. 2, Ogle's reaping 

machine (1.S22): fig. 3, Bell's reaping machine (1828) 14 

IV. Fig. 1 . Hussey's reaping machine (1833) ; fig. 2, McCormick's reap- 

ing machine ( 1834 ) 24 

V. Fig. 1, Hussey's early cutting apparatus ; fig. 2, Hussey's cutting 
apparatus after improvement patented August 7, 1847; fig. 3, 
McCormick's early cutting apparatus: fig. 4, McCormick's cut- 
ting apparatus after improvement patented January 31, 1845 — 26 
VI. Fig. 1, an early form of self- rake (the New Yorker); fig. 2, a 

modern self-rake . ..... 30 

VII. Fig. 1 , the Marsh harvester (1866); fig. 2, a successful wire binder — 

Locke's (1873) 34 

VIII. Fig. 1 , a modern header; fig. 2, the combined harvester and thresher. 38 
IX. Fig. 1, Ketchum's mower (1847): fig. 2, Lewis Miller's mower 

(1858) 40 

TEXT FIGURE. 

Fki. 1. Different forms of sickles and scythes 8 

6 



THE EVOLUTION OF REAPING MACHINES. 



HAND KEAPERS. 

Agricultural machinery is a most important factor in the world's 
progress, and one which has shown a marked development in recent 
years. In no class of agricultural implements has there been a more 
marked development than in that for reaping grain. This develop- 
ment has taken centuries, not because of such a great number of 
stages, but because of the time in which development was almost 
wholly wanting— a time extending through centuries when the sickle 
reigned suj)reme. 

The process of reaping is older than written history. Among the 
remains of the later stone period in Great Britain and on the Conti- 
nent are found implements of flint resembling a rude form of sickle 
01- reaping hook, while bronze sickles occur quite frequently among 
the remains of the early European inhabitants. Our earliest records 
give accounts of reaping, which was in most cases carried on by means 
of implements resembling our modern sickle in form, but of crude 
construction. These earliest records are from Egyptian history. In 
that favored land, watered and fertilized by the river Nile, we see the 
early stages of agricultural development. Here grain was sown, 
trampled into the loose ground by the hoofs of animals, and left to 
gvow from the rich soil where so little care was needed to produce a 
crop. It is among the early works of this remarkable people that we 
find the first records of the process called reaping. A tomb at Thebes, 
probably built 1400 or 1500 B. C, bears a painting which shows the 
various operations connected with the cultivation and harvesting of 
grain. After the style of these ancient works of art, the different 
operations are shown in series in the same painting. Two men are 
represented with sickle-like implements, cutting the grain somewhat 
below the heads. They stand side by side and appear to be making 
the movements simultaneously; behind them a third man, working 
alone, seems to be gleaning, while others carry the grain to the oxen, 
which are tramping it out. Other paintings of this time show two 
distinct modes of reaping. One was to cut low, a handful at a time, 
and bind into sheaves; the other, which may scarcely be termed reap- 
ing, consisted in pulling up the plants by the roots, the heads after- 
wards being stripped from the stalks by means of a comb or hackle. 

7 



O EVOLUTION OF REAPING MACHINES. 

These ancient Egyptian sickles varied somewhat in form and material. 
The earliest form consisted of a slightly curved blade fastened at one 
end to a straight handle (fig. 1, a), both iron and bronze being used. 
Later the toothed sickle apjpeared (fig. 1, d), the form approaching 
more nearly that of the modern sickle. 

The ancient Chinese and Japanese used an implement resembling 
the sickle, and almost the same thing is used b}^ them to-day. The 
Japanese used also another implement for reaping, which they called 
"ani-ani." This cut on the principle of scissors, but was inferior to 
the reaping hook and was abandoned. It is a remarkable fact that 
these two large and ancient nations still cling to the reaping hook in 
harvesting their grain. 

The implements of the Jewish people resembled closely those of the 





d 







Flo. 1. — Different forms of sickles and scythes: «, Egyptian sickle; b, sickle of the middle ages; 
r, later smooth-edged sickle; d, later toothed sickle; e, early form of scythe; /, Hainault scythe 
and hook. 

Egyptians. The sickle was very common, and this, together with the 
reaping process, is frequently mentioned in the Bible, for instance: 
"They reap every one his corn in the field," Job 24: 6; and again in 
Revelation 14: 15, we find "Thrust in thy sickle, and reap." 

To Greece the art of agriculture was passed down from the Egyp- 
tians. The Romans, too, aided in the development, and considerable 
advancement Avas made in the form of implements during Greek and 
Roman times. Varro describes three modes of cutting the straw as 
common in Italy. The first was to cut low with a reaping hook a 
handful at a time; the second, to cut below the heads with a sickle. 



HAND REAPERS. 



9 



consisting of a curved stick with a toothed blade attached, and the 
third, to cut at the middle of the straw. 

The manner of gathering differed likewise, the grain sometimes 
])eiug bound into sheaves, or, when the heads alone were detached, 
they were either taken directly to the threshing floor or placed in store- 
rooms. Among Roman implements we find besides the ordinary form 
of sickle and reaping hook a small hooked knife resembling a pruning 
knife, which was used for reaping. It is at this time also that we find 
the first records of the scythe being used, and although it is not known 
exactly when it first appeared, the Romans certainly used it, as ancient 
Roman drawings show. It was crude in form, consisting of a heavy 
blade on a long straight handle, and was used more for grass than for 
grain, the sickle remaining preeminently the reaping implement. 
Pliny distinguished between the sickle and the scythe, although both 
were at that time called "sickles." The shorter one, which resem- 
bled the modern form, he termed the Italian sickle, and the longer 
one with two handles or hand holds, which corresponded to our pres- 
ent scythe, he called the Gallic sickle. 

After Roman times agriculture began to decline and continued at 
a very low state for about ten centuries, or almost throughout the 
Middle Ages. The pasturing of cattle and sheep in such times of 
strife and trouble was, of course, preferred to tillage, because animals 
might be concealed or moved; but few will sow without a reasonable 
degree of certainty of being able to reap. Some of the operations of 
tillage were not forgotten, as they were retained by the priests and 
monks. After about ten centuries agriculture began to revive, and 
with it was brought back the extensive use of the sickle and scythe. 

Crescenzio in 1548 gives an account of the implements then in use, 
and among them we find forms of the sickle and scythe as shown by 
drawings. From this time on, both are found in very general use 
throughout different countries, and both have remained as useful 
implements up to the present time. 

It would be impracticable, if not impossible, to trace in detail the 
various changes of form which these implements have undergone in 
the development since the earliest times, but some of the more impor- 
tant types should be mentioned. 

As already stated, the early Egyptian sickle consisted of a slightly 
curved blade of iron or bronze, attached to a straight handle, while 
the toothed form of the implement was a later Egyptian tj^pe. Soon 
a greater bow was given the blade, and it began to look more like the 
modern form. The smooth sickles were heavier than the serrated 
forms, and were generally used for cutting near the ground with a 
chopping motion. The toothed sickle was used to cut the grain nearer 
the top by means of a drawing motion. As time went on the blade 
was strengthened by an iron ridge near the back, and finally a steel 



10 EVOLUTION OF REAPING MACHINES. 

edgo was used. With these improvements both the smooth and ser- 
rated sickles reached their most perfect form. 

The scythe was a later imi^lement than the sickle, and was an evo- 
lution from it It forms what might he termed the second class of 
reaping appliances, the sickle being first and the horse reaper last. 
As has been stated, this second class made its appearance about the 
time of the Roman era. The first forms had straight handles and 
were very clums}^ and heavy, being used only for cutting grass. A 
Flemish implement known as the Hainault scj^the was a form inter- 
mediate between the sickle and scythe, and was used for cutting grain. 
It consisted of a wide blade about 2 feet in length, with a handle a 
little over half as long. It was held in the right hand with the fore- 
finger in a leather loop, the blade being kept in a horizontal position 
by a flat, projec^ting part of the handle against the wrist. (See fig. 
1,/.) The grain was gathered by a liook held in the left hand. This 
was much moi-e efficient than the sickle, but was surpassed bj' the 
later forms of the cradle scj^the. 

The forms of tlie scythe varied greatly, i^articularly in the handle. 
The blade became lighter as lime went on, and the handle passed 
through various double, forked, and iron forms, to the final crooked 
wooden iiattern. But with this development, a new feature apjieared, 
which transformed the scythe into a practical hand reaper. This was 
the fastening of fingers to the snath to assist in collecting the grain 
into bunches or gavels. Among the earliest devices of this kind 
was one which consisted simply of "two twigs of osier jnit semi- 
circularly into the holes made in the snath, near the blade, in such a 
manner that one semicircle intersected the other." This, i3rojecting 
upward on the snath, helped to carry the grain around the scythe so 
as to leave it in a bunch. About tlie same time fingers were intro- 
duced — first a single pin inserted in a liole in the snath, later a series 
of three or four short fingers on a bar which was fastened to the snath 
in su(;h a way that the fingers extended on a line with tlie scythe. 
This foi-m geiiei-ally had a .double snatli and a blade much longer 
than the fingers (PI. I, fig. 1). In using it the operator cut toward 
the grain, leaving the cut stalks standing in a fairly well-gathered 
bunch against the standing grain. 

With the development of agriculture among the American colonists 
came an improved form of the cradle scythe (PI. I, fig. 2). Doubt- 
less all the European types had been brought over bj^ the colonists, 
and what is termed the "American cradle " was simply an improve- 
ment upon some of these earlier forms. It is impossible to determine 
just when this implement was invented, but this is of little conse- 
quence, as it was doubtless a growth rather than a single invention. 
It is known to have been in quite common use before the beginning 
of the nineteenth century, and was rapidly taking the place of the 
sickle. Professor Brewer, of Yale, in his history of agriculture in the 



U. S. Dept. of Agr., Bui. 103, Office of Expt. Stations. 



Plate I. 





Fig. 1.— Early Cradle Scythe. 



Fig. 2.— American Cradle Scythe. 











mi' ■ 




'.-*^:5 



Fig. 3.— The Gallic Header, described by Pliny A. D. 70. 



EARLY ENGLISH MACHINES. 11 

United States, written for the Census Report of 1880, divides the his- 
tory into four periods, the second of which eixtends from the time of 
the Declaration of Independence to the introduction of the cast-iron 
plow about fift}^ years later. Of this period he says : 

Many other improved implements came into use during this same fifty years, of 
which the two most important in connection with American grain growing were 
the American cradle and the fanning mill for cleaning seed after it was thrashed. 
The sickle was common, thmigh not in universal use at the time of the American 
Revolution. It was rarely used when the century closed and had ceased entirely 
as an implement for cutting other cereals than Indian corn before the close of this 
period. 

These statements fix tlie introduction of the American cradle as 
somewhere between 177G and the close of the century. 

The American cradle was the culmination of the improvements in 
liand-reaping- implements wliich liad begun ages before in the rude 
stone implements of prehistoric races. Why it should have taken so 
many centuries to reach its perfect form is a subject for conjecture. 
Once perfected, it spread rapidly to other countries either in its origi- 
nal form or in a form modified by foreign manufacturers. To-day it 
is still used in various parts of Europe, and even in America where 
conditions make the use of the reaping machine impracticable. 

The sickle still luis its place even in the most advanced nations, 
and it is used almost exclusivelj' in some of the least developed coun- 
ti'ies, especiall}^ in the; Orient. The scythe also is a necessary imple- 
ment in the nations most advanced in agricultural methods. But, 
with the advent of the horse reaper and mower, these crude liand 
implements ceased to occupy au}^ important place in moxtern agri- 
culture. 

EARLY ENGLISH MACHINES. 

It is a remarkable fact that the operation of reaping should have 
been carried on for centuries with the sickle and scythe as the only 
reaping implements. Yet, such was the case, for almost nothing was 
done toward constructing a reaping machine until near the close of 
the eighteenth century, and almost one-third of the nineteenth century 
had passed before a practical machine was constructed. For thousands 
of years the sickle had l>een the only means of cutting grain, with the 
excei)tion of the scythe, which came into use in the later centuries. 
But now a new era was ushered in — an era in which the reaping proc- 
ess was revolutionized and the possibilities of grain growing extended 
bj^ making the labor of gathering the grain one of the smallest factors 
connected with the industry. There were a few attempts made toward 
constructing a reaping machine even during this long period when 
the sickle held sway, but they were rude affairs and were of little con- 
sequence. It is thought, also, that some such machines were in use 
by the ancients, of which we have no records, but this is only con- 
jecture. 



12 EVOLUTION OF REAPING MACHINES. 

The fii'st mention in histoiy of a reapinj^- machine is one described 
by Pliny during the first century, as in use in the fields of Gaul. (See 
PL I, fig. 3.) It was not a true reaping machine, but a "header," con- 
sisting of a hirge liollovv frame, mounted on two wheels, and set with 
teeth along its front edge. These teeth caught the heads and tore them 
off, after which they were raked into the box by an attendant. This 
machine, like all the early foi-ins, was pushed by an animal yoked behind 
it. Palladius gives a similar account of the machine, and adds that 
"the driver can set the teeth high or low, and that a few goings over 
' the fields will cleanly reap it if the ground is smooth." As this mention 
by Palladius was made in the fourth century, it is probable that some 
form of the machine was in use for many years, but nothing very 
practical came of it, and it seems to have been forgotten for centuries. 

But now we come to the age when inventors began turning their 
attention to machines to lighten the labor of harvesting, to a time 
when competition was becoming more fierce, labor more costly, and 
any saving of time a gain to civilization. The first of these reaping 
machines was after the i)lan of the ancient header of Gaul. £JA man 
by the name of Capel Lofft, of Britain, first suggested the idea of a 
reai)ing machine, in 1785, probably as a result of the proposal made 
in 1780, by the Society of Arts, for a premium to be given the author 
of such an invention. This machine was probably never built, but 
, / '. existed only in the model or on paper. Little is known of its con- 
struction, and it is of interest only as being the first one suggested. 
In 178G or 1787 a machine was constructed by William Pitt, of Pende- 
ford, England, which was in realitj^ a header, but which was con- 
structed on a principle somewhat different from the Lofft and Gallic 
machines, althoiigli doubtless suggested by them. Instead of a row 
of fixed teeth, a cylinder fitted with rows of comb-like teeth was 
placed horizontally on the front part of the frame and made to 
revolve by the power transmitted to it from the wheels]/ As it 
revolved, the inclined teeth caught the heads and carried them over 
the cylinder into the box of the machine. The animal was of course 
attached behind, which was a characteristic method of hitching in 
these early forms, since it Avas necessary that the grain should not be 
trodden upon, and no one had as yet thought of the side cut. 

In 1793, two men by tlie name of Cartright each invented a machine 
for mowing and reaping, but descriptions of them are wanting. The 
reverse is the case with a machine invented in 1799, the name of the 
inventor being wanting but the description being knownT/ It is 
described as cutting the grain close to the ground bj" a number of 
knives on a wheel that revolved upon a circular piece of sheet iron, 
to which were riveted a number of steel, i^oints. These points were 
pushed into the standing grain and served not only to hold it but 
acted also as one-half of a pair of shears (the revolving knives being 
the other) by which cutting was effected. The grain, falling upon a 
platform, was swept by a rod, fixed to the axle of the wheel, off the 



U, S. Dept. of Agr„ Bui 103. Office of Expt Stations. 



Plate II. 



CIRCULAR MOTION. 



CONTINUOUS AND ADVANCIKC. 






CUHMa LAND. 1120. 



riONCi.ilii. 



CHCIHIKC IB!. 



(COruHD.Itll. 



. • . *. I82S. 



•W«Nt(A.II9l 



® 



.^^^ 



^^ 



^^ 



^ 



i^ 



O 



u. t . A . lass. 



r^-^ 



nURCAN UIIDOII.ia40. 



OS 



tUHOCRlAND.mSl 



Fig. 1. -Forms of Early Cutters (Circular Morr 




Fig. 2. -Forms of Early Cutters (Rectilinear Mot 



ION). 



EARLY ENGLISH MACHINES. 13 

platform and laid in the form of a sheaf out of the way of the next 
course of the machine. Nothing more is heard of the machine, how- 
ever, and if it ever advanced beyond the model it was probably a 
failure. It possessed some valuable features, however, if properly 
constructed, and seemed far in advance of the ideas of that time. 
The revolving-knife principle which it embraced was a favorite among 
the early inventors, after the headers had proved to be failures. The 
headers formed the first type of cutters or severers, the revolving 
knife the second, and the reciprocating knife the third and most 
successful type. The revolving principle was naturally suggested by 
the motion of the sickle or scythe, linked with the revolving of a 
wheel. 

A man by the name of Walker made a two-horse machine in 1799, 
but it was inefficient and was soon forgotten. / ^ i 

AThe first machine of importance working on the revolving-knife 
plan was that of Joseph Boyce, of London, also built in 1799, which 
was the first English machine patented. It had a vertical shaft, to 
which were fastened a number of blades. This shaft was made to 
revolve by power transmitted from the wheels on which the machine 
was mounted. It had no contrivance for gathering the grain to the 
knives or for laying the cut grain in s, swath or in gavels. The next 
year a man by the name of Mears attempted to adopt shears as a 
cutting apparatus on a machine which he worked by hand, but it was 
not successful, since neither the shearing apparatus nor the mode 
of applying the power was practical. /During the next four years 
nothing of importance appeared, although a few attempts were made 
both in Europe and in the United States. Two machines by an 
anonymous Frenchman are mentioned, but details concerning them 
are meager. We only know that "one was on the rectilinear motion, 
advancing only, and the other on the circular motion, continuous and 
advancing." A few scattering inventions were made in the United 
States in the early part of the century, but they were unimportant. 

LThe next important invention was by Plucknet, of Deptford, in 
the year 1805. It consisted merely of a rotating circular plate, toothed 
at the edges, entirely destitute of any gathering apparatus, so that, if 
it cut at all, it would leave the grain in a tangled mass. It gained 
no reputation and was speedily abandonedj 

The following year Gladstone invented a machine with a circular 
revolving cutter having a smooth edge. It was supported on a car- 
riage frame with two main wheels and a pair of long shafts projecting 
forward and to one side, so that the horse walked beside the grain, 
pulling the machine, this being the first machine to be drawn. The 
circular cutter was overlapped by a sort of shield, armed with pointed 
projections which served to gather the grain and hold it until cut. 
It had outside and inside dividers, and a complicated gathering appa- 
ratus was used, consisting of a platform above the rotating knife, on 



14 EVOLUTION OF REAPING MACHINES. 

wliicli the grain fell autl from which it was swept by a rake, leaving it 
in small bunches. It was very ingenious, but failed on account of 
the complicated gatherer. 

[in 1808 Mr. Salmon, of Woburn, brought out a machine containing 
some new features, the most important of which was the cutter usedj 
Tliis consisted of a row of vibrating knives acting over stationary 
blades, and was the first vibrating cutter. It was the first to combine 
the reciprocating and advancing motion, and was the first hint at the 
third class of cutters, or those with a reciprocating knife. The plan 
of delivery was somewhat in advance of the day, consisting of a ver- 
tically working rake, driven by a crank in the rear of the machine. 
l>y this means the grain was raked from the platform, which was 
placed just behind the cutter. The machine promised much, but 
owing to certain defects it was a failure and was abandoned. This 
same year Plucknet brought out an improvement upon his machine 
of 1805, including a side draft and a self-delivery apparatus. Up to 
this time none of the machines had aj^proached perfection, and few 
had been operated beyond a mere trial. Little attention was paid to 
them by practical farmers, and they constituted but a small factor in 
agricultural operations. 

;^uriug the next three or four years nothing was accomplished 
worthy of mention; but in 1811 a Mr. Smith, of Deanston, built a 
/^ machine (1*1. Ill, fig. 1) which he kept improving until 1814, when it 
"- performed its work better than any which had appeared up to that 
time. ) It was designed primarily as a mowing machine. It had the 
rotating-cutter principle, and consisted of a frame- work mounted ujion 
two wheels, bearing an inverted conical drum with a projecting cir- 
cular knife at its lower and smaller end. This drum was made to 
revolve by motion transmitted to it 1)}" a system of cogs connected 
with the wheels, thus severing the grain and bearing it to one side 
into a swath. Two small wheels beneath the drum kept the knife 
at a proper distance from the ground, and a contrivance was added 
by which this distance could be inci-eased or decreased. It followed 
the old plan of having the horses hitched behind the machine. 

About this time a man by the name of Kerr brought out a machine 
working on the same principle, and quite a disf)ute arose between the 
two men as to who was the real inventor. From the circumstances of 
the case it seems probable that the idea was original with both men, as 
has happened many times in important inventions. Both machines 
became popular in Scotland, and received prizes from the Highland 
and Dalkeith societies. 

; In 1811 two other machines were brought out, both by Northum- 
brians, John Common and Donald Cummingj The latter's machine 
was ijatented and was a novel aff'air. The cutter "consisted of a 
series of revolving disks placed on two flat bearers, the latter forming 
an angle whose point faced the grain. As the machine moved for- 



U, S. Dept. of Agr., Bui. 103, Office of Expt. Stations. 



Plate 111. 













Fig. 1.— SMITH'S Reaping Machine U814). 




Fig. 2.— Ogle's Reaping Machine (1822). 




Fig. 3. — BELL'S Reaping Machine (1828). 



EARLY ENGLISH MACHINES. 



15 



ward the grain was cut between the revolving disks. A series of 
'hold fasts' projected before the cutters to lead the grain up to them. 
The grain was gathered by revolving vanes or drums and carried off 
to each side of the machine by endless webs.''^ This machine had 
some pretensions to efficiency, and foreshadowed some of the appli- 
ances of modern machines, but it was too complicated and visionary 
to be practical, and was soon forgotten. Common's first machine was 
of little value, but the next year he brought out another, with an 
endless web on two rollers which gave a side delivery, while his knife 
had some resemblance to the famous Hussey pattern of the Western 
Continent. It was not patented, and was soon forgotten. 

The next machine which made its appearance was one invented by 
James Dobbs in 1814. Dobbs was a dramatist, and he worked the 
machine on the stage upon a small field artificially planted with 
wheat. The cutter was circular with a toothed edge. The body of 
the machine resembled a wheelbarrow, and was pushed forward in the 
same way, the drive wheel being placed between the handles. It had 
quite a complicated system of rollers and dividers to lead the grain 
to the cutter, but it was not practical, and was probably remembered 
only because of the manner in which it was introduced. 

The next year (1815) a man by the name of Scott, of Ormiston, pro- 
duced a machine with a rotating cutter consisting of a wheel carrying 
IG small-toothed sickles and having projecting prongs in front like 
Gladstone's. The gatherer consisted of an inverted conical drum some- 
thing like Smith's, but with 24 jointed prongs projecting from it to 
act as collectors or rakes in carrying the grain from the cutter to the 
ground. It had several minor contrivances, but did not work beyond 
a trial. 

Nothing further of importance came out until 1820, when Mann, 
of Roby, constructed his model of a reaping machine. This attracted 
much attention, but the full-sized machine was not constructed 
until 1822, and, when it did appear, it was so complicated that suc- 
cess was doubtful. He continued to work on the machine, however, 
until 1832, at which time it could be described as follows: A wheeled 
frame bearing a polygonal revolving cutter, with a series of revolving 
rakes for carrying the grain to the swath, and an apparatus for 
cleaning the rakes. The machine was drawn, and tlie line of draft, 
although applied in front, was parallel to the line of motion. Tlie 
special feature was the twelve-sided cutter, which was expected to be 
more efficient than a circular one. It did not come up to expectation, 
however, and although used to some extent in the field, it never 
came into general use. 

We now come to one of the most noted inventions in reapers, that 
of Henry Ogle, a schoolmaster of Remington, whose machine (PL III, 
fig. 2) came out in 1822. Ogle was a genius of high order and well 

' Journal of Agriculture, Edinburgh and London, 1853-55, p. 615. 



16 EVOLUTION OF REAPING MACHINES. 

deserves tlie honor bestowed vipon liiin. /The machine itself never 
became popular, but the principle of the cutter together with the 
reel which he constructed is found incorporated in every successful 
reaper since that time^.' He constructed a model of a machine in 1822, 
but not being a workman himself, he submitted the making of a full- 
sized machine to Thomas and Joseph Brown, of Alnwick, England, 
who afterwards helped him in his design. Hence the machine is 
sometimes spoken of as the Ogle and Brown machine. It resembled 
the skeleton of a cart with wheels and shafts, the horse walking ahead 
beside the standing grain and the cutting apparatus extending to the 
right side. This cutter consisted of a frame whose front bar was of 
iron armed with rows of teeth 3 inches long projecting forward. 
Directly under these lay the cutter, a straight-edged knife. There 
was a reel resembling the modern form, which pushed the grain back- 
ward onto a platform situated behind the cutter. This platform if 
hinged could be used as a dropper; if fixed, the grain could be raked 
off in gavels. In the words of Mr. Ogle this platform when hinged 
"is lifted till as much corn is collected as will make a sheaf and let 
fall by a lever upon the frame, when the corn slides off, when it is a 
little raised again. It was found, however, to answer better when it 
was put off with a man and a fork toward the horses, as it is easier 
bound and leaves the stubble clear for the horse to go upon." From 
the position of the lever a seat was evidently provided for the 
operator. 

Here, thence have the foreshadowing of the future reaper — the 
reciprocating knife over stationary fingers, the reel, the platform, and 
dividers. It was drawn from the front and side and was borne on two 
wheels, as are all modern machines. To be sure, the dividers and plat- 
form had been used before, while Salmon had made a kind of recipro- 
cating knife in 1807 ; yet the latter was very unlike this, acting more 
on the i)rinciple of the scissors. ' Ogle should be given the credit for 
the first reciprocating knife combined with stationary fingers, together 
with a very happy combination of other lasting features of the reaper; 
and while the machine never became a great success, owing in a great 
measure to the disfavor in which reaping machines were held by 
laborers and to the threats made upon the manufacturer, yet it was 
the embrj^o of the modern reaper and holds a prominent place in the 
development of these machines. 

Up to this time no machine had been in any great degree successful 
in the field. To be sure, some of them, such as Smith's and Kerr's, 
had been used to some extent, but the greater number had not sur- 
vived a few tests. We come now to a machine which was brought 
into use in considerable numbers and which was used for some time 
in the fields of England and Scotland, some even being sent to this 
country. It was invented by Patrick Bell, of Carmyllie, Forfarshire, 
in 1826 and put in the field in the following year. Bell was a minis- 



EARLY ENGLISH MACHINES. 17 

ter, but, being quite familiar with agricultural operatious and having 
an ingenious turn of mind, he applied himself to the task of inventing 
a reaper, which he saw was badly needed at that time. After much 
consideration lie constructed an apparatus wliich he thought would do 
the work, making his first tests on an artificial field of oats in his 
workshop. After about two years' experimenting he brouglit out what 
has since been known as the Bell reaper. (PL III, fig. 3.) It con- 
sisted of a wooden frame mounted on wheels, with a pole extending 
backward, to whicli the horses were attached. The cutting apparatus 
was on a shearing or clipping principle and consisted of thirteen sta- 
tionary blades about 15 inches long and about 4 inches wide at the 
wider or base end, above which were placed twelve movable blades of 
about the same size, fastened on pivots so as to be moved back and 
forth over the stationarj^ ones below, thus giving a motion like to that 
of so many pairs of shears. The power was communicated to the 
movable blades by connecting their rear ends with a sliding bar, made 
to move by an oscillating rod connected with a worm flange on a 
revolving sliaft. A canvas moving on rollers and sloping to the cut- 
ters carried the cut grain to one side, where it was left in a continuous, 
even swath. The machine was also provided with dividers and with 
a reel much like the modern forms. 

This machine, although built on the wrong principle to ever l)ecome 
a great success, was used for many j^ears in various parts of England, 
or until the introduction of the better machines springing from the 
inventions of Hussey and McCormick, the two Americans whose 
machines were made the basis of the wonderful development in 
harvesting implements which took place within the next fifty years. 
With the introduction of these American machines there entered a 
foreign element into English invention, and from this time on the 
machines of importance were various imj)rovements upon three 
types — Bell's, Hussey's, and McCormick's. Of course, there were 
sundry otlier inventions whicli did not include the principles of these 
machines, but they were of little consequence in the real development 
of the reaper. Up to 1831 there had been 2 French, 1 German, 33 
English, and 22 American inventions recorded, with a few unimpor- 
tant attempts in this line from various other sources ; but to follow 
any except the machines related to the three mentioned would be 
not only impracticable but useless. 

Before considering those machines, which combine both English 
and American elements, it would be well to notice what should be 
conceded to English inventors in this interesting development; and 
although American inventors from this point take almost the entire 
burden, it is undoubtedly true that they received their first ideas 
from their brothers across the Atlantic. 

For the reciprocating knife over stationary fingers and for the 
revolving wheel we are undoubtedly indebted to Henry Ogle, whose 
8910— No. 103—02 2 



18 EVOLUTION OF REAPING MACHINES. 

unique machine contained so many elements of the modern reaper. 
For the platform on which the grain falls we must look first to Glad- 
stone, who in 1806 used such a contrivance on his machine.^ The 
machine failed, but the principle of the platform has survived. As 
to a grain board or divider it is somewhat uncertain who should be 
given the credit of advancing this idea. We find that Dobbs, in 1814, 
had a "complicated process of rollers and dividers to lead the corn to 
the cutter,"^ while Gladstone's machine, with its stationary fingers 
above the revolving knife, and Salmon's with its clipping cutter, 
undoubtedly had something of this sort. Gladstone's machine con- 
tains the first hint toward a self-rake, while Salmon repeated it in 
a different form. Cummings' machine of 1811 contained a reel. Ogle 
must be credited with the first dropper in 1822, and Gladstone with 
the first side-draft machine in 1806. 

We must credit the English, then, with the first reciprocating cutter 
and divider, the platform, the reel, and side-draft features, and with 
the first forms of the dropper and self-rake; but it is to American 
ingenuity that is mainly due the rapid perfection of the practically 
successful grain harvester. Thus far the English came alone, but 
from that point their influence began to wane and American genius 
completed the remaining chapters of the development. 

Of the machines ^ in which both English and American principles 
were blended there are some that are of special importance, but few 
that aid us materially in tracing the true development of the reaper. 

The Hussey machine, introduced into England near the middle of 
the past centur}', consisted of a low frame mounted on two wheels, 
the larger being the drive wheel which transmitted the motion to a 
vibrating bar, bearing ijointed blades or sections working through 
slots in iron fingers projecting forward on the front of the cutter bar. 
Behind the cutter was placed a platform to receive the cut grain, from 
which it was raked by a man riding on the machine. The machine 
was exceedingly simple, and was without reel or any complicated 
apparatus. 

The McCormick machine, introduced about the same time as the 
Hussey, was somewhat more complicated, but had the same i)rinciple 
of a vibrating knife, excepting that in this case the knife had a ser- 
rated edge with only a wavy outline instead of pointed sections as in 
Ilussey's. The fingei's also differed somewhat from the Hussey type, 
and a reel was added to make the cutter more effective, but no place 
was provided on the machine for the raker, who was compelled to 
walk. Both machines were drawn, the horses being in front of the 
machine and beside the standing grain. 



'Scientific American, July 5, 189G. 

'Journal of Agriculture, Edinburgh and London, 1853-55, p. 617. 

^The descriptions of these English- American machines are taken from Jacob 
Wilson 8 Essay on Reaping Machines, published in Transactions of the Highland 
and Agricultural Society of Scotland, 1868-65, p. 123. 



EARLY ENGLISH MACHINES. 19 

With these brief tlescriptions it is possible to glance with more 
iritelliirence at some of^^ie modifications brought out by the English 
inventors. It should be noted here that many of the machines con- 
structed at this time combined both grass cutting and reaping appli- 
ances, and were used for both mowing and reaping. Thus the mower 
was born in combination with the reaper, and it was only in later 
forms that it became a separate machine. 

It was at the great exhibition of 1851 where such a golden oppor- 
tunity was given for the display of inventions that a widespread 
interest became manifest in regard to reaping machinery. This was 
occasioned chiefly by the appearance of the Hussey and McCormick 
macliines which were entered in competition at this time. In addition 
to these, a machine was contributed by a Mr. Garrett which, however, 
was the invention of a man by the name of Tolemache. It possessed 
the advantage of a side delivery, and the horses were yoked one 
before the other. Numerous models were exhibited but these were 
the three of imjDortance. 

The knife in McCormick's machine had a serrated edge with numer- 
ous obtuse blades riveted into the bar, foi-ming very obtuse angles, 
so that it acted as a saw, requiring the aid of a reel to hold the grain 
against it. Ilussey's, on the other hand, had pointed knives which 
formed very acute angles with the guards, and the cutting was more 
in the nature of clipping or chopping. It was more likely to choke 
than McCormick's, and one of the chief objections to jt was that it 
required too fast a pace of the horses to keep it cutting well. Gar- 
rett's was inferior to both these machines, and in the trial McCormick 
won the medal. Not being satisfied with this, Hussey asked for another 
trial, which took place sometime afterwards and in which his machine 
carried oft" the honors over McCormick's. 

Hussey's machine for some time before this exhibition had been 
manufactured by Dray & Co., of London, and was called Dray's Hus- 
sey, while in ISoO Richard Brooman took out an English jiatent for 
McCormick's machine. During the fifteen years following this exhi- 
bition, the progress in invention was marvelous both in the United 
States and in England. 

For purposes of discussion these English machines may be divided 
into two classes: (1) Those having a mechanical deliver}^, and (2) 
those having a manual delivery. In the first class, Crosskill's imijrove- 
men't of Bell's machine in 1852 was one of the most important. The 
improvement consisted in tlie substitution of McCormick's serrated, 
\'ibrating knife in place of the scissoi-s form of cutter and in substi- 
tuting for the revolving canvas a series of endless bands of vulcan- 
ized rubber, fitted with projecting pieces of wood. Burgess and 
Key made an improvement on the McCormick by placing on it a swath 
delivery apparatus, in the form of a series of Arehimedian screws, 
which laid the grain in an even swath. It also contained a few minor 



20 EVOLUTION OF KEAPINa MACHINES. 

improveineiitus such as a revolving cone which acted as a divider, and 
the height of cut conld be regulated while the machine was in 
motion. Another important machine was Lord Kinnaird's, wliich had 
McCormick's cutting apparatus with the addition of his own patented 
delivery apparatus, consisting of endless bands over a smooth sur- 
face, being similar to that of Bell's. The horses walked at the side 
one before tlie other, the rear one being hitched to the shafts. It 
was a simple machine of light draft. 

McCormick's English machine in 1861 differed from the preceding 
in delivering the grain in gavels rather than in the swath. It was 
virtually the American self -rake, which will be described in the next 
chapter and which had by this time Ijecome very common in America. 
It had a series of revolving vanes, one of which was made to sweep 
the grain from the platform out of the way of the next round. It 
was manufactured l>y Burgess and Key. 

A machine introduced by Samuelson was similar to the McCormick 
in having a self-acting sheaf delivery. His 1863 model was an improve- 
ment over the one of the year before, having four (formerly six) rakes 
attaclied to an upright shaft in such a manner as to admit of a free, 
ascending, descending, and horizontal motion. Two of these rakes 
were dummies, while the other two both gathered the grain and raked 
it from the platform, which was quadrant shaped, so that the grain 
was left to one side as it was by McCormick's machine. The height 
of the cut was easily regulated. 

In 1862 Kemp, Murray, and NicKolson introduced a machine in 
which a self -delivery apparatus was applied to an " improved Ilussey." 
It consisted of a self-acting tipping platform and a revolving reel with 
four arms, one of which was longer than the others. At the time when 
the long arms came in contact with the grain, the tipping board fell, 
leaving a well-formed sheaf at regular intervals. A single attendant 
was needed to guide and control the machine, and the size of sheaf 
could be regulated at will. This concludes the list of important self- 
delivery machines up to 1 864. 

Of the manual forms which constitute the second class, the follow- 
ing may be mentioned: Picksley and Sims's machine, which was the 
patent of Mr. Bartlett and which was quite an important machine of 
this class. It had two wheels with a guard or castor wheel ahead to 
prevent the cutter bar from coming in contact with the ground. The 
cutter was on the clipping principle, and was attached to a vertical 
vibrating bar allowing a very free motion. The grain fell upon a 
platform with a spring which gave way with a certain weight, thus 
tipping and dropping the sheaf with the aid of the raker, who sat 
on the machine. It was really a combination of the manual and 
self-delivery tyijes. 

Gardner and Lindsay's improvement of the Hussey was a very popu- 
lar machine in Scotland, and was among the first o"! the improved 



EARLY ENGLISH MACHINES. 



21 



Uussey's. The machine had two wheels and a castor in front. The 
entter bar was hinged and folded, this being the first record we have 
of such a bar among English models. 

Kemp, Murray, and Nicholson also made an improved Hussey, the 
improvement consisting of an increased size both in the driving wheel 
and in the off-side traveling wheel. The speed of the knife was also 
increased so as to decrease the pace of the horses. The height of cut 
could be regulated and a contrivance was attached for throwing it in 
and out of gear. Later improvements were applied to the cutter, in 
which the finger bar was ribbed or flanged so as to increase strength, 
while the knife bar received a greater freedom of motion, thus making 
it less liable to choke and causing a lessening of draft. The grain 
fell on a platform tipped by the. foot of the raker, who, with the assist- 
ance of the rake, could make a very neat gavel. A pole was intro- 
duced, which could rise and fall, thus making it easier for the horses 
than a rigid one. 

These are some of the improvements made in England on the Hus- 
sey machine up to 1862. Burgess and Key also made at this time a 
manual delivery which became a favorite on small farms. It differed 
from some of its class in having both traveling wheels as drivers, and 
in having them in advance of the cutter bar, the castor being behind it. 
Besides a tipping platform, it had a conical screw divider which 
revolved inward and was driven by the weight of the grain, thus 
not only separating the grain, but pushing it toward the raker. It 
was also used as a grass cutter. Cuthbert, of Bedale, also improved 
the Hussey, making a very good machine. He increased the size of 
the drive wheels and suspended the cutter bar l)y a spring so as to 
lessen the friction. The speed of the knives was made less, but the 
stroke longer than in the original Hussey. Shafts were used instead 
of a pole, thus giving steadiness of draft. The height of cut could 
be regulated by tipping the machine. 

Jack & Son, of Maypole, began the manufacture of reapers in 1859, 
])y improving the Hussey, and succeeded in making good machines, 
although their improvements were mostly in details. In 1860 Brigham 
and Bickerton introduced their "Buckeye," an improved Hussey with 
a hinged cutter bar adjustable to different heights. It had a light draft 
and was almost too frail. It was both a grain and grass cutter with 
different cutter bars for each operation. 

Samuelson's "Patent Eclipse" was a one-horse machine, simple and 
light, and with an absence of gearing, the driving wheel communi- 
cating its motion directly to the knife by means of a lever pinion. 

This concludes most of the important manual delivery machines up 
to about the year 1864, and enough has been said to show the develop- 
ment of the English machines up to that date, and to make it evident 
that much of it was due to American inventors. 

It may be said that most of the above machines which have the 



22 EVOLUTION OF REAPINO MACHINES. 

clipping principle (as did most of the Ilussey type) come under the 
head of grass mowers and were ordinarilj^ used as such, although thex 
could be used as reapers. Thus we see that the mower advanced in 
great measure, hand in hand with the reaper, so that it is almost 
impossible to separate the two in the early stages of development. 
Later we see that the point at which they did diverge was in the con- 
struction of the knife, the reaper taking a toothed-edge section and the 
mower the more rapidly vibrating sickle with the smooth-edge sections. 
At this point it would l)e well to pause in noting the development of 
English machines and turn to America, the birthplace of the practical 
reaper. All the successful English machines at this time were but 
modified forms of the American machines, so that it is to this country 
that we must look for the original patterns and the true development 
of harvesting machines. The crude English machines of the early 
part of the century set the American inventor thinking, and in due 
time he laid the foundation upon A\'^iich the reaping machines both in 
America and England have since been constructed. We can here 
leave the English inventors, conceding to them the origination of the 
idea, and the foreshadowing of some valuable principles, but for the 
real development we must look to America. 

AMERICAN MACHINES. 

The development of reaping imj)lements has been traced in broken 
steps from the i-ude sickle of the ancient Egyptian through the most 
important English inventions down to the time when American 
machines were introduced, l)y Avhich all inventions were afterwards 
affected. Attention is now directed to the history of development 
along this line in America, the birthj)lace of the successful reaper. 
In no respect have American inventors exhibited their genius to a 
greater degree than in the development of the reajjing machine. They 
have virtually fashioned their sickles into harvesters. They have 
emancipated the farm laborer from a galling task and made possible 
a wonderful progress in agriculture. 

REAPERS. 

/Th e first patent granted in America for a reaping machine was to 
Richard French and T. J. Hawkins of New Jersey, May 17, 1803. 
This is the earliest record that has been found of an effort to build 
a reaper, but no reliable description of the machine seems to have 
been preserved. It had three Avheels, one of which entered the stand- 
ing grain, but other information seems to be lacking.^ 

The earlier American inventions were mostlj" along the lines of 
grass cutters^but as reapers and mowers were at first so closely 
related they should be discussed together here. On December 4, 1812, 

' Eighth Census of the United States, 1800, volume on agriculture, p. 20. 



AMERICAN MACHINES. 



23 



Peter Gaillard, of Lancaster, Pa., was granted a patent for a grass- 
cutting machine, the first of its kind in America, all machines before 
this time being intended for cutting grain and not grass; thus the 
idea of mowing grass by horsepower with a machine built solely for 
that purpose originated in America, although the machine invented 
by Smith, of Deanston, in 1811, was designed primarily for cutting 
grass (see p. 14). Gaillard's machine was of little consequence; but 
on February 13, 1822, Jeremiah Bailey, also of Pennsylvania, took 
out a patent for a grass cutter, which gained quite a reputation 
throughout the country. It was on the revolving cutter plan, and 
consisted of a rectangular frame supported by two large wheels, one 
being inside the frame and acting as a drive wheel, the motion being 
transmitted to the rotating cutter through a series of cogs. The cutter 
was shaped like a low-crowned hat, the crown being 3 feet 5 inches in 
diameter and the brim about 1 foot wide. This was of wood, with 
the exception of the knife which formed the edge of the brim. The 
knife was kept at the proper distance from the ground by a slioe, so 
arranged that the distance could be increased or diminished at will. 
The horse walked ahead beside the grass. This was the first mower 
that met with the slightest success, and it was used to some extent in 
practical work.' It was the first to indicate the principle of a flexible 
bar by this arrangement for keeping the knife at a uniform distance 
from the ground. 

On May 18, 1825, a patent was granted to E. Cope and J. Hooper, 
jr., for a machine which was really only an improvement of the 
Bailey, as it had the same principle but was simpler. 

The next patented invention worthy of notice is one by Samuel 
Lane, August 8, 1828, for a combined harvester and thresher. It was 
ingenious, but too complicated, and was never used with success. It 
is of interest as being the first attempt at tliis combination. Various 
other inventions made during this early period contained nothing 
imi)ortant and need not be mentioned. 

The next machine that should be noticed is one patented by Erastus 
Ingersoll, May 7, 1830. It was a grass cutter of the rotating-cutter 
type, and, although it never attained much distinction, it was a clean 
invention that should not be forgotten. 

The next invention was one of considerable importance, and, 
although it was built as a reaping machine, its cutting apparatus was 
an important step in the improvement of both mowers and reapers. 
The invention was that of William Manning, of New Jersey, patented 
May 3, 1831. It had two ground wheels fixed to the same axle, from 
w^hich a frame extended, having a bar attachment held in place by 
two arms, and provided with teeth 6 or 8 inches in length, extending 
forward into the grain. A flat bar of iron lay upon this bar, bearing 
spear-shaped cutters sharpened on each of their edges. These were 

1 Farm Implement News, Aug. 3, 1893. 



24 EVOLUTION OF REAPING MACHINES. 

about 6 inches long, and cut the grain as it was lield by the teeth. ^ 
This was substantially the scalloped sickle, and was Manning's origi- 
nal patent, resembling much the celebrated cutters of Hussey and 
McCormick, which afterwards became so important. It had a grain 
divider, the first on record in America. 

In 1833 there were three inventions before the Hussey patent was 
granted, one of which was by William and Thomas Schnebly, and 
had an intermittent endless apron for forming gavels. It was not a 
success. 

Obed Hussey, of Baltimore, Md., patented his world-famous machine 
December 31, 1833. About this time experiments were in progress 
with a machine invented by Cyrus H. McCormick, of Virginia, which, 
with some later improvements, was also destined to go down in his- 
tory as one of the most important machines in the development of 
reaping machinery. This machine is reported to have been first used 
in the harvest of 1831, but no patent was taken out until June 21, 
1834.2 These are the two machines which stood out as models for all 
others that were afterwards successful. 

Hussey's machine (PI. IV, fig. 1) as patented and first constructed 
was mounted on two wheels to the rear and somewhat to the right of 
which extended a platform with the cutting apparatus on its front 
edge. This platform was at first supported in the rear by a roller 
and later a wheel was added at its outer edge. The cutter was the 
unique part of this machine, and consisted of a series of slotted iron 
fingers through which vibrated a number of triangular knives fixed 
to a flat bar. The fingers or guards were 7 or 8 inches long, with a 
slot for admitting the knife and were fixed solidly to the front edge 
of the platform, extending forward into the grain. The knife con- 
sisted of a series of triangular plates riveted to a flat iron bar and 
forming a kind of coarse-toothed saw. One end of this saw was 
attached to a pitman moved by a crank and receiving its motion from 
the main axle by means of cogs. 

McCormick's machine (PI. IV, fig. 2) at this time (one year before 
it was patented) was somewhat more complicated than Hussey's and 
not quite so substantial. It was drawn by one horse hitched in shafts 
and walking beside the standing grain. The drive wheel was situated 
almost directly behind the horse and through a series of cogs gave 
a reciprocating motion to the cutting knife. This knife was about 4:^ 
feet long, with an edge like a sickle, and worked through wires pro- 
jecting before it, which held the grain while being cut. Behind this 
was an apron or platform 5 or G feet long, made of thin plank, from 
which the grain was raked by a man walking behind the machine. 
At the outer end of the platform next to the grain was a i^artition 
consisting of a cloth-covered frame, to divide the cut from the uncut 

' Eighth Census of the United States, 1860, volume on agriculture. 
■^ Who Invented the Reaper ? R. B. Swift, p. 6. 



U S. Dept "f Agr., Bui. 103 Office of Expt Stations- 



Plate IV. 




//wn'it/jik 



■wiTrriir- irMMin n iiririi n iii H ii| M iiiiiiii M iiiiinnn inniinn ii-irnTiim- -mnii 




Fig. 1.— Hussey'S Reaping Machine (1833*. 




Fig. 2.— McCormick's Reaping Machine M834t. 



AMERICAN MACHINES. 25 

grain. There was a reel G or 7 feet in diameter and as long as the 
knife, fastened just over the cutter and made to revolve by a band 
connected with the main axle. This is essentially the description of 
the machine as given in the Mechanics' Magazine in 1833 by an Eng- 
lishman who saw it working in the harvest of that year, and it may be 
considered an unprejudiced and at least a fair description. The 
patent specifications of 1834 described the machine essentially as 
follows: It was borne on two wheels, with a platform back of the 
cutter, so arranged that the sheaves were to be raked off to one side, 
out of the waj^ of the next round. The larger wheel was on the side 
farthest from the grain, and by means of a crank and cogs caused 
to vibrate a straight-edged knife, which is described in the specifi- 
cations as "having the edge either smooth or with teeth, either with 
station arj'^ wires or pieces above and below and projecting before it 
for the purpose of steadying the grain while cutting, or using a double 
crank and another blade or vibrating bar." 

The machine also had a divider to separate the cut and uncut grain 
and a large reel to hold the grain against the knife. The patent also 
specifies that it is to be either drawn or pushed. Thus it is seen that 
the machine as patented corresponded very closely with the one 
described as in use in 1833, so that, while the patent was not granted 
until the next year, McCormick as well as Hussey had his machine at 
work in the harvest of 1833. However, as was stated before, McCor- 
mick's machine was undoubtedly invented prior to this time, as he 
had a machine which operated in the harvest of 1831. According to 
McCormick's own statement in his communication filed when seeking 
for an extension of his patent in 1848, this early machine was essen- 
tially the same as that patented in 1834. Be that as it may, it is 
certain that he had a machine invented in 1831 and that it was tried 
in that year, but that it was a success is not so evident. Hussey, 
on the other hand, makes no claim to having invented his machine 
before 1833. 

The most important part about each of these machines is the cut- 
ting apparatus, and these being the pioneers in successful cutters 
they should be examined in detail. 

Hussej^'s cutter (PI. V, figs. 1, 2) is really a novel and surely an 
original feature of his machine. Although a vibrating knife had been 
used before, it was not like this, and nothing resembling the slotted 
fingers had ever been known. These fingers, or guards, were formed 
of a top and bottom piece, joined at the point and near the back, but 
leaving a slot through which the knife played. They were fixed 
securely into the bar on the front edge of the platform at intervals of 
about 3 inches, and extended forward into the grain about 7 or 8 
inches. The cutter, or saw, was formed of thin triangular plates of 
steel (being made from old saw blades in the first machine) which 
were riveted side by side in a flat bar. They were A^ inches long and 



26 EVOLUTION OF KEAPINO MACHINES. 

3 iiiclies wide at the base, but terminating in almost a point. They 
were sharpened on both edges and beveled from both sides, unlike 
the present mower sections, which are beveled from above only. The 
action, then, was not on the shearing j)rinciple, as in Bell's machine, 
but was rather a chopping or clipping action. The patent specifica- 
tions state plainly tliat " the saw teeth shall play clear over the guards 
both above and below," so that the invention could not have been 
copied from Bell's shearing i^lan, as has sometimes been claimed. The 
doubly beveled sections and closed guard were soon found to be 
faulty, as the cutters were especially liable to clog. Another feature 
had considerable to do with the clogging and also increased the 
draft greatly, i. e. the acute angle Avliich the blade formed with the 
guard. In order to remed}' this difficulty some changes were soon 
made. The blade was shortened and made more obtuse. About an 
inch of the edge of each blade near its base was left flat below and bev- 
eled only from above, in order to shear the trash and grass which 
gathered in the back part of the slot, and, lastly, the guard, instead of 
having a closed slot, was open at the back and upper part, this last 
modification constituting the principal feature of Hussey's patent of 
August 7, 1847. As time went on and many inventors applied them- 
selves to the improvement of this form of cutter, more and more of 
the edge of the blade was left in contact with the guard below, and 
the l)lade became more and more obtuse, ajiproaching more nearly 
the shape of the mower sections of the present day. Thus it is seen 
that while Hussey's invention contained features vital to the reaper, 
it had a greater effect upon the development of the mowing machine, 
and was more strictly a type of mower than of reaper. 

McCormick's cutter (PI. V, figs. 3, 4) as first used consisted of a 
straight blade vibrating between projecting wires which held the grain 
while being cut. This blade, as the patent specifications say, was 
"either smooth or with teeth," and very probably the first machines 
tried had a perfectly smooth blade, which very soon gave place to the 
serrated form. The arrangement of projecting wires to hold the grain 
while cutting was also used at first, but later a sort of finger was 
devised consisting of a strap of iron extending forward over the blade 
and then bending back under it, leaving an opening at the back part 
and beneath. These guards were used until 1830. In 1840 the fingers 
were changed to double closed ones of the Hussey type, but, as in Hus- 
sey's machine, this closed finger had a tendency to cause clogging, 
and was changed for a later style as i)atented Januarj'^ 31, 1845. In 
1841 a change was made in the serrations on the blade, making alter- 
nated groups of teeth to point toward each other, so as to incline 
toward the guards in the reciprocating motion.^ Then came the mod- 
iiication of the guards, as above mentioned, changing them to si^ear- 
. shaped projections, flattened horizontally. Both these changes were 

1 Who Invented the Reaper ? R. B. Swift, p. 36. 



103 Office of Expt. Stations. 



Plate V. 




AMERICAN MACHINES. 27 

incorporated in the patent of Januaiy 31, lS4o; also "the curved 
bearer for supporting the blade," the reversed angle of the blade, the 
construction of the guards so as to form angular spaces in front of 
the blade, the combination of bow and dividing iron for supporting 
the grain, and the position of the reel post on the machine. 

In 1852 McCormick adopted the open finger guard ^ of the Ilussey 
type, and made the blade slightly scalloped on the cutting edge. 
Later the scallops were made more pronounced, finally developing 
into the obtuse-angled serrated section, resembling that used on reap- 
ers and binders to-day. It must not be thought, however, that the 
present forms of guards and sections are Hussey's and McCormick's 
ideas alone, for they are really the result of improvements made by 
various individuals on the original Hussey and McCormick inven- 
tions. These two men were not left long to themselves, for as soon as 
the practical form was established other inventors took up the work 
and by various improvements aided in the deA^elopment. 

As to which of these men should have more credit for origi- 
nality of invention, or for furthering the development of reaping 
machines, it is difficult to decide. Certain it is, however, that many 
of the principles incorporated in these machines had at least been 
hinted at before, and whether or not these men knew of such inven- 
tions can only be conjectured. Although in that day news did not 
travel so rapidly, it is verj^ probable that the first idea of vibrating 
cutters was imported from England, where it had been shown in the 
remarkable invention of Ogle of 1822. It must be remembered, also, 
that Manning, in 1831, had used a vibrating cutter with spear-shaped 
knives, and this step was as great, so far as the invention was con- 
cerned, as that taken b}" either of the men whose machines we have 
been considering.- Ogle also had a platform, so that this was not 
new. Manning had a divider, while Bell and Ogle both had reels, so 
that McCormick was not first with that feature. Thus, it is seen that 
the foundation principles of both machines might have been suggested, 
at least in part, by early inventors. But, be that as it maj^, it does 
not concern us greatly in a study of the evolution of reaping 
machinery. The fact that both* these men made valuable inventions 
on which the real development of reaping machines has been based, 
is sufficient to give tliem places of great honor among the promoters 
of agricultural progress. It is undoubtedly true that in their later 
improvements each man was in some measure influenced and aided by 
the other. Thus, Hussej^'s knife became more like McCormick's and 
McCormick's more like Hussey's as time went on. McCoi-mick profited 
by the Hussey idea of the guards, and Hussey made use of McCor- 
mick's principle of balancing the machine on two wheels. Hussey's 
cutting apparatus was the most unique and probably the most orig- 

' Who Invented the Reaper? R. B. Swift, p. 40. 
-American Agricultural Implements, R. L. Ardrey, p. 81. 



28 EVOLUTION OF REAPING MACHINES. 

mal, while McCorinick's tactful combination of so many essential 
features, whether original or not, did wonders toward furthering 
the development of harvesting machinery. 

In the early trials of these machines the honors sometimes were 
taken by one and sometimes by the other; but it was noticed that, 
while Hussey's was simpler and more durable, it pulled heavier and 
possessed the disadvantage of requiring the wheat to be bound before 
a second round of the machine, since the sheaves were raked directly 
backward off the platform. It was, however, more to be depended 
upon than McCormick's, excepting in wet or green grain, where 
McCormick's seemed to have the advantage. 

Few of either machine were sold for several years. According to 
McCormick's own statement, in an account of his progress, written 
for Philip Pusey, esq., of England, "No machines were sold until 
1840, and I may say that they were not of much practical value until 
the improvements of my second patent in 1845. Up to this period 
nothing but loss of time and money resulted from my efforts. " ^ The 
improvements referred to seem to have increased greatly the efficiency 
of the macliine, for in 1851 more than one thousand were sold. 

Having considered the two foundation machines, we may now notice 
the various improvements and modifications which have apjjeared in 
developing the machines of the present day. The patents and inven- 
tions are so numerous, however, that it Avill be possible to give only 
the most important, or those containing some essential features of 
the later machines; and as the mow^er and reaper were at first often 
combined in the same machine, some of the earlier patents referring 
to mowers must also be mentioned. The mower was at first simply 
the reaper dismantled of its platform and other parts not needed for 
grass cutting, although separate machines for this purpose were early 
constructed. As the mower required a higher speed of the knives 
than the reaper, no successful type of this machine was constructed 
until a device for accomplishing this end was invented. 

Enoch Ambler, of New York, obtained a patent December 23, 1834, 
about which little can be learned. It is understood, however, that 
he luid the first wrought-iron finger bar with steel guards and shoes. 
There is some difference of opinion as to the worth of this invention, 
but the finger bar seems to have been somewhat in advance of the 
times, resembling the later forms of the McCormick and Ilussey 
machines. 

Abraham Randall (or Rundell), of New York, April 22, 1835, pat- 
ented a curious cutting device, consisting of two sickles or cutters 
with corresponding i)oints to be operated in contrary directions, thus 
making a double shear cut with each pair of j)oints, the whole acting 
as a series of double-acting shears. It was one of the most important 
of a number of inventions on this principle Avhich were made in this 
country an<l in England, one successful mower, the Danford, being 



' Overlooked Pages of Reaper History, p. 11. 



AMERICAN MACHINES. 29 

upon this i)rinciple.^ This Randall machine also contained a raking 
and discharging device, wliich was among the first attemjDts at an 
automatic rake. Up to this time the raking had all been done by- 
hand; hut now, after the essential parts of the reaper were worked out, 
inventors began to endeavor to perfect the machine and to solve the 
problem of a successful automatic device to remove the grain from 
the platform. 

The early devices for automatically removing the grain from the 
platform were varied and often crude. It will be remembered that 
Bell used an endless canvas to lay the grain in a swath at the side, 
while Crosskill's English modification of McCormick's machine several 
years later used a number of Archimedian screws to accomplish the 
same jDurpose. These and numerous other devices were tried, such as 
reciprocating bars with pegs to work the grain to one side and rake 
teeth iDenetrating a stationarj^ platform below, as in Reed's machine 
(see below). Finally, among the numerous attempts along this line 
came that which operated with rakes above a stationary platform, the 
type from which the self- rake was at last developed. Among the first 
of this class were the single-rake tyj)e, which raked directly backward 
with a horizontal motion. Others had a rake fastened to the reel, while 
some had single rakes sweeping a quadrant platform. Finally came the 
revolving fans, either on a vertical or an inclined axis, one of which 
raked the platform. Later the vanes or fans were all made alike, each 
being capable of sweeping the platform at the will of the operator. 

One of the fii-st patented inventions which sought to deliver the 
gavels automatically was that of Schneblj^ patented in 1833. It had 
a horizontal endless apron, traveling intermittently and thus deliver- 
ing the grain in gavels by the side of the machine. In 1838 Cyrenus 
Wheeler invented a machine with a revolving endless apron to deposit 
the grain in a box with a sliding bottom which could be opened, thus 
dropping the grain in gavels. Jonathan Reed patented a machine 
March 12, 1842, that had a rake beneath the platform with teeth 
projecting through the slots to remove the grain in gavels. He also 
introduced a form of cutter which possessed the peculiarity of serrated 
guards in combination with serrated cutters, but this never seemed 
practical. Clinton Foster, this same year, April 18, patented a form 
of rake which swe^it across the platform as conti-olled by the operator, 
and November 20, 184(j, Andrew Cook patented a rake which was 
attached to the reel, forming a revolving reel rake, the first of its 
class. This latter machine was afterwards manufactured by Goble 
and Stewart and had a revolving canvas, back of the platform, upon 
which the grain was swept by this revolving rake and thus transferred 
to the ground to one side. 

'McCormick's original patent provided for a similar device, i. e., two knives 
working in contrary directions, as well as for the single reciprocating knife after- 
ward exclusively adopted (see Progress of Invention in the Nineteenth Century, 
by E. W. Byrn, p. 198; American Agricultural Implements, by R. L. Ardrey, p. 45 j. 



30 EVOLUTION OF REAPING MACHINES. 

A machine patented by William F. Ketchnra, July 18, 1847, although 
built as a mower, should be mentioned here. The valuable feature 
was in the cutter bar which was made to sweep the ground only the 
length of the cutting part, being then angled up to the drive-wheel 
frame, the present mode of attaching cutter bars. It was in this year, 
too, that Hussey patented his open-topped guard and McCormick 
received a patent for a raker's seat on his machine. The nejct pat- 
ent for a.i automatic delivery was that of F. S. Pease, November 14, 
1848. It had a grain rake traveling sideways beneath the platform 
with side slots for tlie fingers. Mann made one much like this the 

next yeai'. 

On November 21, 1848, Goble & Stewart patented a rotary rake 
passing horizontally across the platform, and which was "given an 
unequra motion for the purpose of raking the cut grain in an effectual 
mannei'." Daniel Gushing about this time took out a patent for an 
apparatus with revolving rakes. The next year, January 16, Oliver 
Barr patented a revolving rake and an inclined platform with a sort 
of trap door for the grain to fall through, a kind of dropper. This 
same year Haines conceived the idea of suspending the frame carry- 
ing the conveyor," reel, and cutter to axles of the bearing wheels, and 
hinged the frame to the tongue so that it could be tilted in raising or 
lower] nsi' the cutters, an important improvement. 

A. J. Purviance, of Ohio, May 22, 1849, obtained a patent for con- 
structing the platform separate from the other framework so as to 
convert the machine into a mower or reaper as required. This was 
the first practical combined machine, and. marked the beginning of 
the long list of such machines both in America and England. On j 
June 12 of the same year an important patent was taken out by Nel- 
son Piatt, which was afterwards assigned to Seymour & Morgan, 
pioneers in the development of the self-rake. It had a self-acting 
rake sweeping over a quadrantal platform and leaving the grain in 
gavels at the^side of the machine. It was the first of the sweep-rake 
system which afterwards became so popular. On June 19 of this . 
year J. J. & II. F. Mann patented a device consisting of endless 
bands delivering the grain into a receiver from which it was dis- 
charged in gavels by an attendant. 

This brings the history up to 1850, most inventions of any impor- 
tance made prior to that date having been mentioned. From this 
time on inventors by the score began tui-ning their attention to per- 
fecting the means of delivering the grain, and patents became so 
numerous that it will be possible in this treatise to mention only those 
most essential to the development. About this time, as the machines 
became more and more in demand, companies began to spring up to 
engage in their manufacture, so that in a few years the industry 
became of vast importance and the machines came into use through- 
out the United States and were rapidly introduced into other coun- 



U. S, Dept. of Agr., Bui 103, Office of Exot. Stations, 



Plate VI. 




Fig. 1 .— An Early Form of Self-rake— the New Yorker. 




Fig. 2.— a Modern Self-rake. 



AMERICAN MACHINES. 31 

tries. Within ten years the mower became practically wliat it is to-day 
and another decade saw the foundation of the modern hinder prac- 
tically laid. 

The year 1850 was not remarkable for important inventions. E. Dan- 
ford patented an improvement on a double sickle and produced a 
mower which was very effective. It was so perfect as to be able to 
cnt through a cock of hay, Init the difficulty of keeping the knives 
free of the gum on their adjacent surfaces was so great that the 
machine had to be abandoned. On July 1, 1851, Palmer & Williams 
obtained a patent for a sweep-rake and quadrant platform. This 
platform was similar to that of the improved self -rake, but the rake 
was a single attachment made to sweep the platform horizontally at 
regular intervals. Assigned to Seymour & Morgan, it entered into 
their system of self-rakes. The same month a patent was taken out 
by William H. Seymour, of tlie firm of Seymour & Morgan, for a ma- 
chine differing little in essential principles from the above. The rake 
swept the platform every 14 feet, or at the will of the operator. This 
machine became very popular in the East and was known as the 
"New Yorker" self -rake (PI. VI, fig. 1). Both these inventions entered 
into the system of self-rakes of Seymour & Morgan, and through this 
firm much was done toward perfecting this machine. 

John H. Manny obtained a patent September 23, 1851, for hanging 
the cutter bar to the side of a triangular frame so that neither end 
could sag ; also for a f orker's stand back of the outer end of the plat- 
form. It had sickle-edged knives and the cutter could be raised or 
lowered at will. It could be used as a mower by detaching the plat- 
form, but was objected to as being too cumbersome. It was one of the 
earliest successful combined machines and laid the foundation of the 
reaper business of Rockford, 111. R. T. Osgood obtained a patent 
February 17, 1852, for indejiendent driving and supj)orting wheels on a 
common axle carrying a rectangular frame between them on the axle, 
also providing each drive wheel with ratchet wheel and pawl as used 
in the mowers of to-day. This was assigned to Cyrenus Wheeler, and, 
together with others, became one of the base patents of the "Cayuga 
Chief," a very pojjular machine of that day. 

The next important invention *is that of Jearum Atkins, patented 
December 31, 1852. It was known as the Atkins Automaton from the 
action of the rake. This rake was rigged on a vertical post and had 
a jointed arm which swept across the platform gathering the grain 
against a shield; the post, rake, and shield then turned 90° on an axis, 
the rake raised and the grain dropped in the rear of the driving apx)a- 
ratus. It worked well for a time and had a large sale, but was finally 
abandoned. 

In 1852 a man by the name of Hoffhein produced a rake that could 
operate as a reel — the early form of the revolving vane used on the 
reaper of to-day. The device consisted of a vertical shaft carrying 



32 EVOLUTION OF EEAPTNG MACHINES. 

four reel arms so geared as to sweep the platform at regular intervals- 
The rakes were in pairs upon cross shafts and the latter were arranged 
to rock, so that when moving over the platform they would come close to 
it, but in the rest of the revolution they were high above the gearing. 

September 20, 1853, Philo Sylla and Augustus Adams obtained a 
patent for a machine which carried three men upon the platform to 
bind thfi cut grain as it was forked or shoved around to them by a 
fourth man. An important feature of this machine was a finger bar 
hinged to tlie main frame so as to allow the bar to "vibrate perpen- 
dicularly and accommodate itself to uneven ground." 

A. J. Cook, who had received a jjatent on a revolving reel rake in 
1846, took out a patent March 28, 1854, for a reel rake sweeping back- 
ward, which was assigned to Cyrenus Wheeler. Abner Whitley, 
September 10, 1854, obtained a patent for suspending a rake to one of 
the reel blades, a very important patent. 

In 1855, J. E. Newcomb obtained a patent for a dropper, which was 
assigned to J. F. Sieberling, of Ohio, the acknowledged head of the 
drojjper system. The dropper as now used consists of an attachment 
behind the cutter bar, which holds the grain until enough has been 
accumulated for a sheaf, when it is lowered and the grain allowed to 
slide oft". The first invention along this line was by Ogle (1822), who 
had some such arrangement on his machine (p. 15). Other devices 
have been used, such as one by Wheeler, in 1838, which delivered the 
grain by a canvas into a box, from which it was dropped (p. 29). 
The most improved form, however, consists of a number of slats 
fastened to the rear of the cutter bar, and which may be raised and 
lowered at the will of the operator. It is used to some extent at the 
present day, especially for jiarticular jjurposes, as for bunching clover 
when cutting for seed. 

In 1856 Owen Dorsey patented a self-rake which was an improve- 
ment on the Hoflfhein tyjie, and was an important patent in the devel- 
opment of this form of machine. It is operated much like the Hoff- 
hein machine, having ' ' rakes which rise and fall as they rotate, and 
as they approach the front part of the platform dc^scend to the level 
of the latter and sweep over it, raking the cut grain therefrom, and 
then rise at the discharge end of the platform out of the way." At 
first the operator could not ride, but this difficulty was overcome by 
the patents of T. Whitenack, February 5, 1861, and of others. This 
is the first patented invention of revolving reels on a vertical axis, as 
the invention of Hoffhein was not patented. At this j)eriod there 
were a great number of devices using simply a single rake for sweep- 
ing the platform, but with the last-named invention tlie first types of 
the present self-rake made their appearance. 

D. M. Osborne and W. A. Kirby, February 10, 1857, secured a patent 
covering a reel supported on a single post, a feature afterward incor 
porated in the Kirby, a popular machine of that day. 



HARVESTERS. 33 

Both rigid-bar and flexible-bar machines now came into use, and 
especially among mowers were these distinctions important. There 
were the two divisions, the single- wheel rigid-bar tyiDe and the two- 
wheeled flexible machine. Reapers were also affected by changes 
ill this lint .ind were made like the mowers in both ways. A patent 
granted to Lewis Miller May 4, 1857, combined the reel with hinged 
platform, so as to preserve their relations on even ground, a very 
important invention. S. A. Lindsey took out a patent August 2, 1859, 
for a reel rake arranged to accommodate itself to a hinged plat/orm, 
also covering the important combination of a quadrant platform, 
hinged finger beam, and frame supijorted by two wheels. The next 
year, September 18, McClintock Young obtained a patent for a " com- 
bination of a revolving reel shaft carrying diverging reel gatherers 
supported at one end only, the fixed double- walled cam and the rake 
revolving around said shaft and oscillating on an axis both eccentric 
and transverse to said shaft, with counterpoise to equalize the move- 
ment of said rake." The shaft of this was not vertical, but resem- 
bled that of the ordinary horizontal reel, and shows the manner of 
developing an important feature from the forms that preceded it. 
This invention is of special importance, as it was the foundation 
patent of the McCormick self-rake. The Whiteley patents, embodied 
in the Champion machine, were taken out at this date. In 1862 
James S. Marsh took out a patent for a revolving rake and reel, the 
arms of which were hinged to the revolving wheel independent of 
each other. Finally, may be mentioned the patent of Samuel John- 
son, Februaiy 7, 1865, for his celebrated reel rake, in which all the 
revolving arms carried rakes and were each hinged independently 
and all controlled by the operator. This was the Hoffhein type prac- 
tically comj)leted, and needed but detailed improvements to make 
the self-rake of to-day. With this patent the self-rake was virtually 
complete, and thereafter the many inventions referring to it were 
only in details. (See PI. VI, fig. 2.) It had not long to remain king, 
however, for by 1870 the binder was coming into use, and the fate 
of the self-rake, except for pai^ticular places or purposes, was prac- 
tically sealed. 

HARVESTERS. 

The term "harvester" may, in its broadest sense, be applied to the 
modern self-binder as well as to the header of the Western plains 
and of Australia. Long before the self -rake had reached iierfeetion, 
invention had been going on in both these directions and various forms 
of machines had been devised. Even before a practical cutting appa- 
ratus had been produced efforts were being put forth toward making 
a device for heading and threshing grain, and also to discover some 
mode of forming the cut grain into sheaves. 
8910— No. 103—02 3 



34 EVOLUTION OF REAPING MACHINES. 

BINDERS. 

Taking up first the efforts made to constrnct a machine having an. 
automatic binding apparatus, it is desirable that such macliines be 
divided into two general classes : (1) Those in which the binding device 
is attached to a machine of the self-rake pattern, called the "low- 
down" class, and (2) those in which the grain is elevated to the 
binder, as in the present form of the machine. 

fEarly devices for binding were very crude and differed greatly from ■ 
tile'present form. Materials used for the band in these early forms 
were of three kinds— straw, wire, and twine— various attempts being 
made to use each of these materials. Many of the early devices, 
^ although automatic in the binding, required an attendant to furnish 
^ the power, while others required an attendant also in helping to bind. 
The first attempt on record to bind grain l)y machinery was by 
John E. Heath, of Ohio, whose patent was granted July 22, 1850, and 
called for a twine or cord binder?] His claims in patent specifications 
were: "First, gathering the gTain and compressing it into a sheaf, 
substantially as herein set forth, l^y means of the rake and standard; 
second, carrying the cord around the sheaf and holding the latter 
until the band is tied by means of the curved lever h and toothed armj 
g, substantially as herein set forth; third, the employment of split 
thimble and sliding hook to aid in tying the band." Two more claims 
are mentioned, but they need not be noticed here. Little is known of 
this binder except from the patent. It was on the "low-down" prin- 
ciple, as were all tlie early machines and the rake mentioned in the 
first claim worked beneath the platform. ^ 

rT\vo patents, one in 1851 by Watson, Renwick, and Watson, and 
one in 1853 by P. H. Watson and Renwick, foreshadowed the moderi 
/Q^ binder in great measure, but were too complicated to be practical o] 
- ' to allow of description here;^ The inventors were men well acquainte( 
with patent-office methods and made the patent cover so many fea 
tures that it was a stumbling block to later inventors. Their greal 
complexity rendered the machines valueless, although showing con 
siderable ingenuity. The latter of these machines approached mor 
nearly to the modern binder than any of the early machines, th 
grain being carried by a series of revolving bands to a sort of crib 
where it was bound automatically with cord. It, however, never go 
beyond the experimental form. 1 

fin 1853 J. E. Nesen patented a straw binder worked by an attend^ 
ant^ and Geo. Yost, in 1856, received a patent for a binder using cord 
cut'into lengths for binding, which was also worked by an attendant. 
[9^ ' The next device which need be noticed was invented by C. A. 

McPhitridge November 18, 1856, and was the first wire binder. The 
wire was coiled upon a reel and delivered to a reciprocating binding 

1 American Mechanical Dictionary, Vol. III. 



U. S. Dept of Agr., Bui 103, Office of Expt. Stations. 



Plate VII. 




Fig. 1.— The Marsh Harvester 1I8661. 




Fig. 2.— a Successful Wire Binder— locke's (1873). 



BINDERS. 35 

arm, receiving the ordinary twist and cut of the later machines. 
During the year 1857 four patents were granted in this line, but all 
pertained to straw binding and were of little valuer/ 
l^ow came an invention which in an indirect way was to revolution- 
ize binder building. It was the invention of C. W, and W. W. Mai'sh, C 
of Illinois, patented August 17, 1858, and was known as the Marsh ~ 
harvestefJ(Pl. VII, fig. 1). It had a frame much like that of the mod- 
ern binder, with a canvas which elevated the grain over the drive 
wheel into a receiving box, and from M^hich it was taken and bound 
by two men riding on the machine. This was not the first attempt 
at a harvester that carried men to do the binding, but the first that was 
practically successful. Augustus Adams and J. T. Giflford had built 
a machine in 1850 which delivered the grain by an endless canvas to 
two or more attendants who bound it into sheaves. It also had a box 
for receiving and carrying the sheaves until enough were collected 
for a shock. It was tried in the harvest of 1850 or 1851, but Mr. Gif- 
ford dying, Adams associated himself with another man, Philo Sylla, 
and began work on a machine of a different principle. The Marsh 
brothers were the first to deliver the grain Ijy canvas over the drive 
wheel, and it was to this machine that the practical binders were 
afterwards attached.^ 

C^The first Marsh harvester was built on the home farm in 1858. The 
next year 12 machines were built, but most of them failed b}^ reason 
of poor construction, and not because of faulty principle. They kept 
at work, however, and in the winter of 18(30-01 AVilliam W. Marsh -^^ 
and J. F. Hollister built a machine which was worked successfully(3/ 
for their harvests. Seeing the success of this machine, a company 
Avas formed, consisting of the tAvo Marsh brothers, Mr. Hollister, and 
George Seward. They put out 24 machines in 1864, 2i^ in 1865, and 100 
in 1866, the number increasing each j-ear until 1870, when over 1,000 
Avere built^ Through the aid of William Deering, Lewis SteAA^ard, 
J. D. Easter, and E. H. Gammon, aaIio early became connected Avith 
the firm, the business continued to groAv, and from it has developed 
the Deering Harvester Company of to-day. 

It was in building a machine to which the ijractical forms of bind- 
ing device could be attached that the Marsh brothers established a 
landmark in the development pf harA^esting machinery, and made for 
themseh^es a name and reputation. 

But Avhile this framcAvork of the modern binder Avas being devel- 
oped, the binding apparatus Avas also being perfected, although attached 
almost AAithout exception to machines of the self- rake type. Up to this ^ 
time, however, nothing practical had been produced in the numerous' ?^ 
attempts at straAv, Avire, and cord binding dcAices. Passing over sev- 
eral ingenious straAv binders brought out in 1858 and 1859, Ave come 
to the patent of J. D. Osborn, June 14, 1859. This is shown by the 

' Farm Implement News, May 18, 1893. 



36 EVOLUTION OF HEAPING MACHINES. 

patent specifications to have had "a binding knot composed of three 
loops passed throngli each other," etc. The cord or twine was taken 
from a reel. Again omitting several unimportant devices we come to \ 
that of H. M. andW. W. Burson, patented June 2fi, 18^0, which was a 
twine binder to be used upon any reaper, and which t led hy means of 
hooks working together. It was not automatic. The next year the Bur- 
sons brought out a Avire binder, which was th*e foundation of a machine 
that made a greater sensation and came nearer being a success than 
any of the "low-down" type, although the binder was worked by an 
attendant. The feeling against wire for binding was so strong that 
in 1865 he substituted a knotter for the wire-binding device, and had 
a twine binder at work in that j^ear^But the price of twine, the 
necessitj" for a man to work the apparatus, and the influence of the 
Marsh harvester, then becoming so popular, doomed his machine to 
failure]7 After this nothing came of the " low-down" type of machine, 
and although many patents were taken out for binding devices, none 
became popular excepting those which were applied to the Marsh 
pattern. 
£]f he next important invention was that of Jacob Behel, patented 
February 16, 1864. It was the knotting bill which is used with little 
modification on almost all binders of the present day?) Connected 
with the bill was a turning cord holder, consisting of a small notched 
wheel which held the cord. The bill seized the jiortions of the cord 
which were to form the knot, and looping it, moved past a knife which 
cut it off in the proper place, leaving the end of the cord from the 
ball firmly held by the turning wheel. Mr. Behel took out other 
patents, and by 1865 had a knotter which worked well. 
/ May 31, 1870, a patent was taken out by George II. Spaulding for an 
improved grain binder of the Marsh harvester tj'pe. This machine 
contained the important feature of an automatic binding mechanism 
7<J which made bundles of uniform size. The value of this invention 
was quickly recognized by manufacturers and incorporated in their 
machines^ 

The next name that should be noticed is that of Sylvanus D. Locke, 
who first took out a patent for an automatic binder in 1871. He 
took out various patents and made a fairly successful wire binder, 
which he finally attached to a harvester of the Marsh type through 
the aid of Walter A. Wood. This machine was first put out in 187.S, 
and became a popular machine of that time (PI. YII, fig. 2). 

While Locke was perfecting his machine James F. and John H. 
Gordon, in connection with Mr. Deering, of the Marsh Harvester 
Compau}', were working on a machine, also of the wire-bindini^ type. 
/John H. Gordon produced his first "packer" binder in 1873, and his 
brother soon after brought out Avhat was known as his "crane" wire 
Cj binder, both machines l)ecoming popular. These machines were put 
out by Gammon, Deering & Stewart and by T). M. Osborn & Co., 



HEADERS. - 



37 



while C. H. and L. J. MeCormick. soon began the manufacture 
of the Withingfcon tj-pe of wire binder, one of the most successful 
wire binders ever put out. It differed from the Gordon and Locke 
machines in its chain movement, in liaviug two spools of wire from 
which the bands were formed, and in other devices. All these were 
attached to the Marsh type of machines, and were fairly good ma- 
chines. But about this time, when wire binders were l>ec(»ming 
widely used, and when it seemed that these companies had tlie mar- 
ket in their poAver, the cord binder forged to the front and the wire 
binders were doomed to extmetioiiT} 

r^f the cord liinders whicli had been devised up to 1875, when the 
wire binders were coming into wide use, several were valuable, but 
the one by Behel contained the principles that were to last. In 1875, 
however, John P. Appleby, who, as early as 1858, had invented a suc- 
cessful twine knotter, but who had since that time been devoting his 
time to wire binders, again turned his attention to cord machines. 
He connected himself with Parker & Stone, of Beloit, Wis., and with 
their aid built an automatic binder that promised well. It was the 
foundation of the binding apparatus which is used on almost every - 
binder to-day. It combined the good points of the preceding inven-( ^ ) 
tions in a great degree, with some principles original with the inventor. 
It underwent improvements during 1876 and 1877, and through the 
aid of William Deering was still further perfected during the two 
following years. By 1880 it was practically perfected, and 3,000 were 
put upon the markeC] The Deering, MeCormick, Champion, and 
Osborn companies at once procured rights and began the manufacture 
of this type of binder in combination with the Marsh style of frame, 
adding various improvements in details as they saw fit. This style of 
machine immediately leaped into popular favor. All others were soon 
distanced in the race for superiority, and the binders of the present 
are simply this type of machine more nearly perfected. From that 
day the modifications have been in detail and not in principle. It is 
true that among the twenty-odd manufacturers of machines there are 
found types differing considerably from this, but they are not among 
the most popular machines. 

HEADERS. 

The first attempts at a reaping machine were probablj' in the form 
of a header. In regard to the first historical account we know this to be 
true, for Pliny describes one at work (p. 12) in the fields of Gaul, which - 
was of this type. It is probable, too, that some forms of the harvester 
were in use by the ancients, of which we have no record, since his- 
torians gave their attention to other than agricultural subjects. The 
earliest English machines were also after the form of the old Gallic 
stripper, so that this mode of harvesting is not new. In America 
various attempts have been made to construct heading machines, tlie 



38 EVOLUTION OF REAPING MACHINES. 

trials reaching back to the earliest inventions in reaping niacliiner}^ 
while from the very flrst, attemjots were made to bnild a threshing 
apparatus in connection. 

As early as 1828, Samuel Lane, of Maine, obtained a patent for a 
machine which was a combined harvester and thresher, a very ingen- 
ious but complex machine. It never went beyond a patent, how- 
ever. Various other machines were constructed, seeking to combine 
the reaper and thresher, a few of which may be mentioned. 
[^ machine for harvesting, threshing, cleaning, and bagging grain 
was patented June 29^, 1836, by H. Moore and J. Hascall, which con- 
tained inan}^ ingenious devices and might have proved a success, with 
some improvements, had the great fields of the Western plains and 
California been ileveloped at that time. In the climate of the more 
eastern States it was impractical and never became a success. 

In 184:5 an Englishman by the name of Ridley, then residing in 
Australia, invented a combined harvester and thresher which excited 
much comment at the time. It was made to be pushed before the 
horses and the heads were torn off by a comb-like device much after 
the style of the ancient machine of Gaul. The climate of that 
country being favorable for the use of such machines it was used to 
a considerable extent. Perfected types of the combined harvester 
and thresher are used to a considerable extent in Australia to-day. 

On October 2, 1848, George Esterly, of Wisconsin, patented a har- 
vester which was a noted machine in that day. It had a reel which 
severed the heads by striking the straw against a knife on the front 
of the machine. The heads were collected in a box on the back part 
of the machine just in front of the horses, which were hitched in the 
rear. 

The next and most important invention was that of Jonathan Haines, 
of Illinois, patented March 27, 1849, and known throughout the West 
as "Haines's Illinois Harvester." As improved, it was a thoroughly 
practical header and large numbers of them have been sold. It had 
a device for raising and lowering the cutters, and cut a very wide 
swath. It is this style of machine that is now used in great numbers 
on the plains of the West. This machine ^P1^.-VIII, iig. 1) is fitted 
with a very long cutter-bar and reel, and by means of a long, canvas 
elevator carries the heads to one side, where they are deposited in a 
w^agon with a bed fitted for the purposeT/ It is pushed by attaching 
four horses abreast to the tongue in the rear, and guided by a wheel- 
steering device. Six men and ten horses can by the aid of this 
machine cut and stack from 15 to 30 acres per day. 

In some parts of the WeSt, especially in California, where there is 
no fear of rain during harvest, a combined harvester and thresher is 
used, which heads, threshes, separates, and sacks the grain (PI. VIII, 
fig. 2). It is propelled either by a traction engine or hy horses. If 
horses are used, from 30 to 36 are required, and if steam is used more 



U. S Dept of Agr , Bui, 103, O'fice of Lxpt. Stations, 



Plate VIII. 




Fig. 1 .— a Modern Header. 




Fig. 2.— The CuMbiNED Harvester ^.,^ i.,,,^oHER. 



MOWERS. 39 

men are needed than if horses furnish the power. The machine has 
a capacity of from GO to 125 acres per day or from 1,700 to 3,000 
bushels. These machines have done a great deal toward developing 
the immense wheat output of tlie Western country and should hold 
no small i^lace among the harvesting appliances of the present da3\ 

American harvesting machines are the most perfect in the world, 
and to-day they are being introduced into almost every country on 
the globe. In 1840, 3 reapers were made in America; in 1845, 500 
were made and 50 people were emploj'ed; in 1850, 3,000 were put out; 
in 1860, 20,000 were turned out by factories emplojing 2,000 hands. 
During the next ten j^ears the increase was not so rapid, but in 1870 
30,000 were built by 5,000 employees; in 1880, 60,000 machines were 
built by 20,000 employees. In 1885, 1,000 binders and 150,000 reapers 
and mowers were constructed bj' 30,000 employees. In 1890 two 
manufacturing establishments in Chicago made more than 200,000 
machines, half of which were binders and the othef naif reapers and 
mowers, and in 1899 more than one single firm exceeded that number. 

MOWERS. 

In the early development of the mower, it was so intimately con- 
nected with the reaper that a little space should here be devoted to 
a short review of its history. Hussey's first machine was really a 
mower, and it was upon this principle that the mower was afterwards 
built. Many of the early machines contained combinations of the 
mower and reaper, and were used with a little adjustment to cut either 
grain or grass. 

The idea of a separate machine for cutting grass was conceived in 
America, the first attempt to construct such a machine being by Peter 
Gaillard, of Pennsylvania, whose patent was dated December 4, 1812. 
The machine was not successful, however, and it is remarkable only 
as being the first. The next was by Jeremiah Bailey, Fel)ruary 13, 1822 
(see page 23), and was on the revolving-cutter plan. It gained some 
notoriety at the time, and worked with a slight degree of success, 
i^.nother important invention was that of Wm. Manning, patented 
May 3, 1831 (see page 23). It was reallj' a reaping machine, but con- 
tained the principle of the reciprocating knife which afterwards became 
so famous as the basis for all mower cutters. 

This brings us to the celebrated patent of Hussey in 1833, the founda- 
tion of the modern mower. Hussey's combination of the reciprocating 
knife and slotted guards is used with some improvements upon all 
mowers of the present day. Hussey brought out the principle; others 
helped to perfect it. The history of the mower from 1833 to the present 
day has been simply a perfecting of this type of cutter bar, and the 
working out of certain necessary details. 

In this development there were two classes of machines: (1) Those 
having a rigid bar and single drive wheel, and later, (2) those having 



40 EVOLUTION OF REAPING MACHINES. 

the double drive wheel and flexible bar. In the first type there was 
sometimes a smaller wheel to support the cutter bar, and sometimes 
none; while in the latter the cutter bar was jointed to the machine, 
and had, if any, only a small roller at the end. 

A name that stands out prominently in the develoj)ment of mowers 
is that of William F. Ketchum, who has sometimes been spoken of as 
the father of the mower trade, since he was the first to put mowers 
on the market as a type of machine distinct from the reaper (PI. IX, 
fig. 1). He took out several patents, but the one granted July 10, 
1847, was of especial importance. The main features of this patent 
were the unobstructed space left between the driving wheel and the 
finger bar with its support, and the remarkable simplicity of the 
machine. The cutter was an endless chain of knives, which never 
became successful, but which caused some excitement at the time. 
Ketchum afterwards adopted the Ilussey type of cutter and produced 
a very successful mower of the rigid-bar type. It was this machine 
that led the way in mower development and became the first really 
practical machine. 

In 1850 Ebenezer Danford, of Illinois, patented a machine with a 
double knife cutter, previously described (p. 31). This was a strong 
machine and one of the most successful up to this time. By 1855 this 
type of the fixed-bar machine had been perfected, but it lay with the 
fiexible-bar machines, which were now coming into use, to sweep 
from the market the former type. 

The first invention showing the feature of a flexible bar was that 
of Hazard Knovvles, the machinist of the Patent Office at Washington. 
It showed many valuable features of a reaping machine also, but no 
patent was taken out. The patent granted to Cyrenus Wheeler, 
December o, 1854, marks the division between the two types of 
machines. Wheeler was a practical man, and, like McCormick in the 
development of the reaper, succeeded in combining so many impor- 
tant features in his machines as to give him a place as one of the 
foremost pioneers in the developmenti of the mower. The machine of 
1854 was not a success as constructed, but the features of two drive 
wheels and a cutter bar joined to the main wheels were lasting. 

A careful study of the reports of some of the mower trials which 
were held about this time would be of use in showing what machines 
were then in use and to what degree they were practical. At a trial 
of mowers and reapers at Springfield, Ohio, July, 1852, three com- 
bined machines and three mowers were entered. The combined types 
were by McCormick, Purviance, and Smith, and the mowers by Hus- 
sey, Castle, and Ketchum. McCormick's mower was simply the reaper 
with platform removed and with the cutter set low. It did not oper- 
ate well, however. Purviance's mower was also the reaper with plat- 
form removed and cutters lowered. The alteration was easily made 
and the machine operated quite well, but the committee gave as its 



U. S. Dept. of Agr,, Bui 103, Office of Expt. Stations. 



Plate IX. 




Fig. 1.— Ketchum's Mower (1847). 



Tife 




Fig. 2.— Lewis Millers Mower M858) 



MOWERS. 41 

opinion that combined machines were not so good as the separate 
types. This was nndonbtedly correct, for the combined machines 
soon dropped out of view on the appearance of the mower. 

Smith's combined machine was the third mower and reaper exhib- 
ited at the above-named trial, bnt it failed to do good work. As to 
the mowers shown, llasse3''s was quite simple and operated well, bnt 
required three or four horses. Castle's, a creditable machine, with a 
reel and two series of knives, worked somewhat like Bell's old English 
type. The committee expressed itself as doubtful as to its operating 
when the knives became dull. Ketchum's was the simplest and most 
durable in construction and quite light in draft. It took the first 
prize, with the Ilussey machine second. The report shows that 
Ketchum had a very practical machine in 1852, with Hussey a close 
second.' 

Another trial at Geneva, N. Y., about the same time, shows Manny's, 
Ketchum's, McCormick's, Murray's, Rugg's and Danford's machines 
among the contestants. Manny's had a peculiarly constructed frame, 
and the knife conld be regulated while the machine was in motion. 
A reel was used, and the cutter sections showed the early efforts to 
prevent clogging by placing the back part of the edge of each knife in 
contact with the guard, a modification of the Hussey cutter. Ketch- 
um's had a simple compact construction, with an iron elbow connect- 
ing the cutter bar witli the running parts of the machine. It was 
the same style of machine as exhibited in the trial at Springfield. 
McCormick's machine had obtuse sickle-edged sections and also 
the form of spear-shaped fingers patented in 1847. The machine was 
too frail, and the knives could not stand the strain. Rugg's resem- 
bled the old Bell machine, having the horses in the rear. It had a 
means of raising and lowering the cutters at will, bnt soon ceased 
to operate. Danford's was also used as a reaper, and had a double 
crank with blades reciprocating past each other. Hussey, McCor- 
mick, Cook, and Burrall exhibited combined machines. 

At a trial in 1855 at Flushing, N. Y., there were five entries, Manny 
taking first and Ketchum second prize. At a contest two years later 
there were five entries — Wood's, Ketchum's, Allen's, Bartlow's, and 
Harmon's. Ketchum took first and Allen second prize. At the trial 
at Geneva in 1866, twenty different mowers were entered, so that it 
is seen that an immense amount of work had been done on this 
machine, and from the gi-eat number in competition it is evident that 
the successful mower had been developed. ^ 

Returning to the history, however, we' find that in 1855 a patent 
was granted to Jonathan Haines which was ver}' important in the 
development of the flexible cutter bar. It had two drive wheels and 



' Report of Board Agriculture of Ohio, 1852. p. 120. 

' Transactions New York Agricultural Society, 1852, 1855, 1857. 1860. 1866. 

8910— No. 103—02 4 



42 EVOLUTION OF REAPING MACHINES. 

a cutter bar jointed to the main frame in such a manner that it could 
be lifted over obstructions, and the tongue was rigidly fastened to 
the main frame. 

On July 17, 1856, a patent was granted to Cornelius Aultman and 
Lewis Miller containing principles that still exist in all successful 
mowers. The first patent claimed "connecting the cutter bar to the 
machine by the double-rule joint or the double-jointed coupling pin." 
It was reissued to cover an arrangement for holding up the bar while 
moving, and the combination of ratchet wheel, pawl, and spring. On 
May 4, 1858, Lewis Miller took out a patent on a mower that com- 
bined the features of the former machine with some new principles. 
(PL IX, fig. 2. ) It contained all the elements of the successful modern 
two-wheeled machine, and mower development since that time has 
been a perfecting of this type. This machine was built under the 
name of the "Buckeye," and, with a substitution of metal for certain 
wooden parts, and certain other improvements, it is in use to-day. 
E. Ball, associated with this firm, also made valuable improvements 
in mowers. In 185G a patent was granted to A. Kirb}', covering 
improvement made by him a few years previous, and his machines 
soon became i^opular. Others took up the manufacture of mowers at 
this early date, so that by 1860 the mower had become a thoroughly 
practical machine, and was being improved by various firms thorough- 
out the country. This improvement has gone on with the many 
makes of machines now in existence, and to-day we have various 
forms, from the single one-horse machine to the large two-horse type, 
with its long cutter bar, running with as light a draft as the former 
clumsy machine did with a cut but half as wide. As a result of this 
development the amount of hay produced in the United States has 
increased enormously, and to-day it stands as one of the most impor- 
tant crops. 



REFERENCES TO LITERATURE. 

Ardrey, R. L. American Agricultural Implements. Chicaso, 1894. 

British Manufacturing Industries. Agricultura Implements, p. 151. 

Johnson, C. W. Modern Agricultural Implements. London. 184T. 

Memorial of Robert McCorniick. ( 'hicago, 1886. pp. 61. 

Official Retrospective Exhibition of the Development of Harvesting Machinery for 
the Paris Exposition of 1900, made by the Deering Harvester Company, 
pp. 12o. 

Slight, J., and Burn, R. S. Book of Farm Implements and Machine.s. Edin- 
burgh, 1858. 

Stabler. E. Overlooked Pages of Reaper History. Chicago, 1897, pp. 102. 

Swift, R. B. Who Invented the Reaper? Chicago, 1897. pp. 54. 

Thomas, J. J. Farm Implements and Their Construction and Use. New York, 
1869. 

Dan berry's Roman Husbandry. 



referencp:s to literature. 43 

Depew, C. M. One Hundred Years of Aiuerican Commerce. New York, 1895, 
Vol.11, p. 352. Chapter on Agricultural Machinery and Implements, E. M. 
Fowler. 

Donaldson's British Agriculture, p. 23S. 

Doyle. M. Cyclopa-dia of Practical Husbandry and Rural Alfnirs in General. 
London, 1844, p. 492. 

Emerson, G. American Farmer "s Encycloptedia. New York, 1S.5S. 

Hoskyns, C. W. Short Inquiry into the History of Agriculture in Ancient, Medie- 
val, and Modern Times. London. 1849, pp. 160. 

Johnson, C. W. Farmer's Encyclopa?dia and Dictionary of Rural Affairs. Lon- 
don. 1842; Philadelphia. 1851 (rev. by G. Emerson). 

Loudon. J. C. Encyclopaedia of Agriculture. London, 18:^9. 4 ed., pp. 24, ':5, 
372, 420. 

Morton. J. C. Cyclop.edia of Agriculture. Glasgow, 1851-1855, Vol. II, p. 741. 

Periam, J. The American Encyclopaedia of Agriculture. Chicago, 1881, p. 782. 

Stephens, Henry. The Book of the Farm. Edinburgh and London. 1871. :! ed., 
Vol. II. p. 294. 

Youatt, W.. and Fream, W. Complete Grazier. Lonlon, 1893, 13 ed., p. 738. 

Wilson. .J. M. Farmer's Dictionary. Edinburgh, 1851, Vol. II. 

Wilson. J. M. Rural Encyclopedia. Edinburgh, 1851. Vol. IV. p. 25. 

American Cyclopiiedia, 1875, Vol. XII, p. Id. Mowing and Reaping Machines. 

American Mechanical Dictionary. Vol. III. p. 1888. 

Appleton's Encyclopedia of Applied Mechanics, Vol. I, p. 15. 

Chambers's Encycloptedia. See article on Reaping. 

Encyclopa?dia Britannica. See article on Agriculture. 

International Cycloptedia. New York, 1900, Vol. XII, p. 458. 

Johnson's Universal Encyclopaedia. New York, 1895, Vol. VII, p. 17. 

Maison Domestique, Vol. I, p. 300. 

National Encyclopaedia, Vol. X, p. 83. 

Thomas, J. J. Rural Affairs. Albany. Vols. I (181.5-1857), p. 72; V (1807-1869), 
p. \0.j 

Yoang, Arthur. Annals of Agriculture and Other Useful Arts. London, 8 (1787), 
p. 161. 

Eighth Census of the United States. 1860, Volume on Agriculture, p. 2!). 

Tenth Census of the United States, 1880, Vol. Ill, p. 131. 

Report Board of Agriculture of Ohio, 1852, p. 120. 

Transactions Highland and Agricultural Society of Scotland. Edinburgh, Jan- 
uary 1863-1865, p. 123. 

Transactions New York Agricultural Society. 1852, 1855, 1857, 1860, 1866. 

Farm Implement News. Chicago, May 18, January 11, 1900: July 6 and 37, 
August 3, 10. 17, 24, and 31, and September 7 and 21, 1893. 

Gardener's Magazine. London, 5 (1829), p. 600; 6 (1830), p. 295. 

New York Tribune. Half Century of Agriculture. December 22, 1897. 

North British Agriculturist. Edinburgh. July 19, 1893. 

Journal of Agriculture. Edinburgh and London, 1851-53, pp. 478, 654: 1853-55, 
pp. 175, 185, .541, 611; 185.5-57, pp. 65, 147; 1857-59, p. 61. 

Scientific American. New York, December 16 and 23, 1854; July 25, 1896; 
February 8, 1900. 

o 



LB Mr '07 



